Yet another "I have a big pee-pee" argument...
...from Forking.
Okay, you're a big fund manager. Okay, you "bet" millions of bucks at a whack.
The stock market is not blackjack. They're different things. You can blather all you want about the market, and personally I'd definitely defer to your vastly better knowlege and experience.
About the only thing I would say is this: It's been shown, time and again, that the big market-wide indexes BEAT big-time-money-managers (like you) over the long run.
So you'll forgive me if I don't bow down and kiss your feet just because you manage a great gob of money.
Now, on to the BJ discussions... I never said that my way was the ONLY way. As Umm pointed out, I just used the commonly accepted (even by OldAggie, the original poster) definition of "advantage".
And the math STILL proves you're wrong, anyway. If the AP is truly counting cards and betting correctly, he has a POSITIVE expectation ahead of him at the start of EVERY new shoe. Every time.
Will he win every time? Of course not- that's why it's gambling.
But the point is that whether the guy is "ahead" for the session or not doesn't make a single bit of difference going into a new shoe.
Yes, by quitting when one is ahead, he guarantees himself the "utility" of winding up a winner on that session. You're totally right.
But that wasn't what the guy asked. He wanted to know if there was advantage in doing so, and the answer is "no".
Think of it this way. No matter what he does, the guy always has another shoe to play. His expectation, going into every shoe, is that he's going to win $30.
Will he win 30 bucks every time? Nope. Some times he's going to win 100, sometimes he's going to lose 200, sometimes he's going to break even. But overall, he's going to average a 30 dollar win.
What forking argues is the notion of "opportunity cost", but he ignores his own concept- if you leave, you are leaving money on the table- over the LONG run.
Let's take it a step further. OldAggie has, say, 100 sessions ahead of him. If he follows forking's advice, getting to his decision point of "do I play one more shoe or quit", and always quits when he's a winner, he's giving up 100 shoes X $30, or $3,000.
THAT is his "opportunity cost". He is consciously leaving money behind simply because he wants to feel like a winner; he is actually giving UP the ability to feel like a winner MORE OFTEN.
(This, actually, is why managed funds wind up not making as much money as the overall market in the long run; managers decide to be satisfied with present gains, and give up future ones.)
Now, let's go a step further; say OldAggie isn't a redchipper, but a black one. Let's say in each shoe his expected value is not $30, but it's $600.
Should he quit now?
Coop